Dora stall speed

The devs of the new il2 at777 also found a value between 1.3 and 1.4 to be the most accurate.Just like Yoyo.That'a big coincidence.

 

Can you post a link to those tests you talk ? They seem interesting .

 

Yes indeed, I was going to post the same thing and you preceded me ...

 

And like you, I'm curious to see this documentation as I'm very interested in the subject.

 

:thumbup:

The devs of 777 also argued vehemently that a value of 1.17 for a FW 190 was right, which they calculated from a test they didnt even understand, only had small parts of the data, for a completely irrelevant Reynolds number. So please just ignore what they are doing... they even said the Luftwhiners have to adapt to reality. Bunch of BS.

 

Can you post a link to those tests you talk ? They seem interesting .

 

 

Yes ofcourse.

 

US F4U-1 vs P-51B trial:

 

 

 

RAE Fw190G Jabo vs P-51B trial:

 

 

The devs of 777 also argued vehemently that a value of 1.17 for a FW 190 was right, which they calculated from a test they didnt even understand, only had small parts of the data, for a completely irrelevant Reynolds number. So please just ignore what they are doing... they even said the Luftwhiners have to adapt to reality. Bunch of BS.

 

 

 

+1

That comparison (P-51 turns slightly better, FW 190 rolls much better) is in line with everything I've ever heard about the two. My understanding is that this is also how it is in-sim, no?

 

As for P-51 versus F4U in turns, you can't just look at wingloading. That'd be altogether too simplistic. Drag and powerloading aside, things like chord thickness and aspect ratio matter for sustained and instantaneous turns, respectively.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Echo38

That comparison (P-51 turns slightly better, FW 190 rolls much better) is in line with everything I've ever heard about the two. My understanding is that this is also how it is in-sim, no?

 

Keep in mind this was a Fw190G Jabo running at reduced power (1.3ata max) against the lighter P-51B running at atleast 67" Hg.

 

And no ingame the P-51 doesn't just turn slight better than the 190, it turns a lot better. We carried out extensive testing and there's litterally no way for the 190 to win turn fight against the P-51 in DCS.

 

As for P-51 versus F4U in turns, you can't just look at wingloading. That'd be altogether too simplistic. Drag and powerloading aside, things like chord thickness and aspect ratio matter for sustained and instantaneous turns, respectively.

 

Trust me, I'm well aware of that and the F4U doesn't have the edge in any of those. Thus the only reasonable explanation for the better performance is that the 23xxx airfoil provides more lift at the Re numbers and service conditions of the real aircraft, and evidently esp. during combat turns.

Good 190 pilots can beat bad Mustang pilots in a turn fight in dcs. But most of the time the Mustang turns much better, especially with flaps. Flaps seem to help a lot in dcs for not much of a cost in energy. Same thing with 109 vs spit. In a minimum radius level turn you can outturn bad spit pilots with 2 stripes of flaps. Same with Mustang vs 109. Most of the time with between 1 & 3 notches flaps you can outturn most 109 pilots.

 

I know the flaps thing was discussed here somewhere before but can't remember how it ended. I think David & Mad tested it to the conclusion that basically you have more of an advantage the more flaps you use in dcs, and the cost in speed/energy is not enough to make it worth keeping them in.

The devs of 777 also argued vehemently that a value of 1.17 for a FW 190 was right, which they calculated from a test they didnt even understand, only had small parts of the data, for a completely irrelevant Reynolds number. So please just ignore what they are doing... they even said the Luftwhiners have to adapt to reality. Bunch of BS.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup:

 

 

They probably took the numbers from DCS and called it "research"… :music_whistling:

 

 

Mate, to start with a test should be done in "controlled" conditions, ISA atmosphere, real SL altitudes, and flying in an adequate way. Those numbers of yours in OP lacks everything. Why some people keep thinking anything they do inside the simulator can be taken as a proof of something? :wassat:

 

 

S!

Edited January 5, 2018 by Ala13_ManOWar

Keep in mind this was a Fw190G Jabo running at reduced power (1.3ata max) against the lighter P-51B running at atleast 67" Hg.

 

And no ingame the P-51 doesn't just turn slight better than the 190, it turns a lot better. We carried out extensive testing and there's litterally no way for the 190 to win turn fight against the P-51 in DCS.

Lighter P-51B, by some couple hundred pounds while featuring 100HP less. Anyway, you seem to misunderstand what is said in that comparison, it says P-51 will always "evade", that means a break manouver, in the initial attack due to "difference in speed". That's pretty old news, of course a faster 190 will always miss a breaking P-51 in the initial turn, because it turns tighter, but also because the 190 at high speed doesn't. Anyway says nothing about how much faster a Fw190 will fly a wider circler at high speed making possible other kind of combat manoeuvres. Whatever, that means nothing about how tight or not a P-51 turns against 190. What's your point?

 

 

I also carried tests with a "friend" (which is no more :music_whistling: ) about those things. After many "extensive tests" from him it turned out that when I was the pilot the supposed difference wasn't that great, he was "testing" wrong things. How did you test what and with who?

 

 

S!

The devs of 777 also argued vehemently that a value of 1.17 for a FW 190 was right, which they calculated from a test they didnt even understand, only had small parts of the data, for a completely irrelevant Reynolds number. So please just ignore what they are doing... they even said the Luftwhiners have to adapt to reality. Bunch of BS.

 

I told him that because he wrote in another post the 777 devs built a better fm for the 109 .So you can't have it both ways.

The Window where is the Dora working is pretty small, balance act between you go in a accelerate Stall produce to much drag with Flaps or getting out turned because you Flying to slow to get her working in Dogfight and come out as winner is pretty hard.

In this is P-51 much more versatile much easier to Handle.

The Window where is the Dora working is pretty small, balance act between you go in a accelerate Stall produce to much drag with Flaps or getting out turned because you Flying to slow to get her working in Dogfight and come out as winner is pretty hard.

In this is P-51 much more versatile much easier to Handle.

 

But in fact, the Dora is not a dogfight airplane but a boom & zoom, the comparison with the P-51 in this sense is not indicative ...

 

:thumbup:

However, I struggle to understand the meaning of this thread and where it wants to go to parry who opened it, given the comparisons with different versions of the 190 and not with the Dora ...

 

:thumbup:

with different versions of the 190 and not with the Dora

 

Or in other words, as per usual no valid evidence whatsover was presented. I wonder why are these zero-value threads even tolerated here?*

 

Still, don't get me wrong. If someone produces valid source documents pertinent to the exact AC in question and is able to produce unequivocal evidence by reproduceable tests showing that said AC is in error, then I'm willing to bet ED too wants to hear about it. But this evidence absolutely _has_ to be quantifiable and the test results reproduceable, or nothing at all will happen (or indeed should).

 

And this last point is exactly where most of these complaints fail, because people here don't seem to understand that anecdotes aren't really worth much per se. How long is a piece of string indeed?

 

*EDIT: But by all means move them to the Chit-Chat section of the board if you prefer. Because worthless as they are, they can still be amusing. And on occasion, even edifying ;)

Edited January 6, 2018 by msalama

Or in other words, as per usual no valid evidence whatsover was presented. I wonder why are these zero-value threads even tolerated here?

 

 

 

Find such Thread much more interesting where YoYo explain how he comes to this conclusion for the Flight Model then Constant whining. (But he likes this probably not :D

There is a Valid Chart present by Hummingbird that's say other wise, but there is no evidence this for the hole Plane or not.

These threads do have their right to exist. Many FM changes for the better were triggerd by such threads. From the top of my head eg 109 roll rate, parasitic drag, wing slats, rudder forces. Initially the official stance there was all is good as is, but then came a change for the better and more realistic.

 

Yo-Yo has asked several times the community for data and thats a valid thing to do, because just like ED the community has been collecting data fo decades and are in possession of stuff ED has missed. The sheer amount of data and the problematic of aquiring it make that a given.

I'm all for it, if the supporting data is quantifiable and the faults unequivocally proven. But mere anecdotes do not suffice, for reasons that should be clear for everyone.

 

And that's all I've got to say about this, since I'm not even interested in the Dora one way or another (a chopper / L-39 guy here). But I yearn for truth and due process regardless :D

I'm all for it, if the supporting data is quantifiable and the faults unequivocally proven. But mere anecdotes do not suffice, for reasons that should be clear for everyone.

 

And that's all I've got to say about this, since I'm not even interested in the Dora one way or another (a chopper / L-39 guy here). But I yearn for truth and due process regardless :D

 

But in fact, the thread is certainly legitimate and can also be useful, but the annals are not enough but it is necessary, in order to have a validity, to bring to support their thesis the documentation that certifies what is said and must be of Dora not of another version of the 190...

 

:thumbup:

must be of Dora not of another version of the 190

 

Exactly. and I really must get my coat now *RUNS AWAY*

But in fact, the thread is certainly legitimate and can also be useful, but the annals are not enough but it is necessary, in order to have a validity, to bring to support their thesis the documentation that certifies what is said and must be of Dora not of another version of the 190...

 

:thumbup:

 

The Dora is a 190 with a more powerful engine, the wing (which provides the lift) is exactly the same. The main difference between the Fw190G and Fw190D is that the Dora is less draggy and has more horsepower available.

And no ingame the P-51 doesn't just turn slight better than the 190, it turns a lot better.

 

[facedesk] I see that you once again didn't bother to read my post on the "very rapidly" thing (by the way, the same problem Mslama is talking about with the "quantifiable" bit).

 

Ahhh ... one can lead a horse to water ...

[facedesk] I see that you once again didn't bother to read my post on the "very rapidly" thing (by the way, the same problem Mslama is talking about with the "quantifiable" bit).

 

Ahhh ... one can lead a horse to water ...

 

You asked wether it was also the case ingame, which it really isn't. Crumpp and I did extensive testing, with video evidence posted on here for all to see as well. If that isn't quantifiable evidence then I'm not sure what is.

 

 

HbcWjutL06A

yZ4XdW4aZ2o

mjTZUNcXaLM

GCmlQNPTXME

Edited January 6, 2018 by Hummingbird

I can applause for all these videos for the good choice of music and accurate holding 9-10 degrees of AoA... But I can not understand how all this jazz deals with maximum CL you appeal to? By the way, this Max CL as well as the best ROT you can find at much higher AoA...

 

I believe I was trying to maintain the speed you specified on a chart would provide the best sustained turn rate for the Dora, hence I tried my best to stay in the sweet spot your chart recommended. In the comparison you can see me hold around 12.5 AoA.

 

Regardless of this however the P-51 had zero issues keeping up and outturning the Dora, regardless of weither we went for max ITR or STR, it never worked for the Dora and it was never close.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Hummingbird

The Dora is a 190 with a more powerful engine, the wing (which provides the lift) is exactly the same. The main difference between the Fw190G and Fw190D is that the Dora is less draggy and has more horsepower available.

 

I do not agree, in the Dora everything changes compared to the previous series of 190, size, weight, center of gravity, etc ..., you can not take the parameters of one as valid for the other.

 

If you want to support your thesis you have to bring documentation referring exclusively to Dora, the rest in the context of the speech is irrelevant.

 

:thumbup: